So, in light of this:
New poll finds 9 in 10 Native Americans aren’t offended by Redskins name
Nine in 10 Native Americans say they are not offended by the Washington Redskins name, according to a new Washington Post poll that shows how few ordinary Indians have been persuaded by a national movement to change the football team’s moniker.
The survey of 504 people across every state and the District reveals that the minds of Native Americans have remained unchanged since a 2004 poll by the Annenberg Public Policy Center found the same result. Responses to The Post’s questions about the issue were broadly consistent regardless of age, income, education, political party or proximity to reservations.
Among the Native Americans reached over a five-month period ending in April, more than 7 in 10 said they did not feel the word “Redskin” was disrespectful to Indians. An even higher number — 8 in 10 — said they would not be offended if a non-native called them that name….
… what do we think now about the name of the Washington football team?
Here’s how Bryan responded to the news yesterday:
@BradWarthen@washingtonpost it’s almost like a small group is inventing a reason to be upset about nothing. Almost.
— Bryan Caskey (@BryanCaskey) May 19, 2016
As for me personally — well, I’ve never seen any problem with it. The most likely motive for the name to me has seemed to be the one the team claims — as a respectful tribute to indigenous people. But since I’m not one of them, and I’ve been told it is supposedly offensive to people in that demographic (and also because I don’t much care what any football team calls itself), I’ve stayed out of it.
The Post has been going wild with the subject since releasing the poll results yesterday:
Will a new poll on the Redskins name alter the legal fight over the team’s federal trademarks?
Some in the news media are still offended by Redskins name, even if Indians aren’t
I’m dropping my protest of Washington’s football team name
For Native American activists, a new Post poll on Redskins name won’t end their fight
Native Americans’ indifference on ‘Redskins’ could reset D.C. stadium talks
So what do y’all think?
Russell Means as Chingachgook
Oh, one last thing: Before anyone objects to my use of “Indian” in the headline… I don’t do so thoughtlessly. Not long ago, I read 1493: Uncovering the New World Columbus Created. The author chose to use “Indian” for the peoples whose direct ancestors came to this continent thousands of years ago. I found his reasoning for that persuasive.
Besides, Russell Means of the American Indian Movement preferred it. Who am I to argue with Chingachgook?
Related Posts
I think it very broad-minded of me to agree with Russell Means on something, in light of his libertarianism…
A humerous poll in so many ways, but this is my favorite:
http://legalinsurrection.com/2016/05/poll-real-native-americans-disagree-with-elizabeth-warren-on-redskins-team-name/
I think we should just assign team colors and be done with hurt feelings.
So they would just be the “Washington Red”?
Yes, during Republican Presidential administrations, Blue during Democratic.
My experience of 35 years as an archaeologist in the SW, 13 of those years as Coordinator for the AZ repatriation statutes, leads me to believe that most don’t care about the collective noun because they don’t traditionally think of themselves as part of a pan-American category. They think of themselves as Tohono O’odham or Dene or Pee Posh. And indeed, those names define groups with very different cultures.
That makes sense, Lynn.
The last of the Mohicans, to borrow a phrase, has about as much in common with descendants of the Incas as I do.
That’s why I’ve always thought it odd to speak of Obama as a black American.
African-Americans come from many cultures originally, but they have one experience in their family backgrounds that unites them: Slavery. That, and Jim Crow.
Obama doesn’t have that. No ancestor of his was brought here as a slave. And his African heritage is VERY different from those who were. His Dad was from Kenya.
East Africans don’t even look like West Africans. It’s like lumping together an Irishman and a Slav…
I can in all honesty say if a team called itself The White Guys…I would not care at all.
If it was a football team you’d be singling out the kicker and the coach.
You know, the Native Americans ought to be really offended at how lousy the Redskins have been over the last several years.
I mean, if you’re gonna name a team after me, I want it to do well. Don’t name your team the Fightin’ Caskeys and then lose all the time.
I saw the Fightin’ Caskeys lose to the Raging Rosses in an exhibition game at Dreher High School in 1983.
We all seem to have trouble understanding our differing perspectives. I doubt too many white folks would object to a team named the Honkies, but a few southerners would likely feel disrespected if “the Crackers” were playing baseball in Georgia – especially if their symbol were a pot-bellied undershirt-wearing three-toothed white guy. A Rednecks team would bring a cheer from a segment of southern and midwestern white folks, while another segment would be silently offended – especially if they’d been disrespected by the use of the term much of their lives.
In another segment of the world, a German soccer team named the “Kikes” or even the “Hebs” would likely raise some strong objections – and not from Jewish citizens only.
Voices from IWAs: “Injuns With Attitude”:
I have to add that it’s at least passing strange that someone who says he doesn’t make choices based on polls is ready to use a poll to dismiss those who consider this particular name a problem. I mean, think about it: If 8 or 9 out of 10 black South Carolinians had said, I don’t really have a problem with the Confederate flag, would that have meant it would’ve been ok to tell the other 10-20 percent they should just get over it? How big does a population have to be before the insult counts?
It’s “passing strange” to get the opinion of the actual group who the team name allegedly offends? Seems pretty straightforward to me. If Native Americans are overwhelmingly not concerned with the issue, then maybe all the people who are concerned “on their behalf” should pipe down.
Check out the link above for some of those folks who are concerned “on their behalf” — they happen to be Native Americans.
But most aren’t so why change it for the few that are?
This is a football team, not a state Capitol dome.
The point is obvious – to anyone willing to see it: Do insults count only if a majority feels insulted?
If it’s not intended as an insult and only a very small percentage of the “offended group” feels offended, then no.
But I’m guessing you’re not persuaded. That’s okay.
I can’t imagine how it must be to go through life constantly taking offense at the slightest things, but then again, I’m a lawyer.
But the way, I know a great Plaintiff’s lawyer. He’s 100% Sioux. 🙂
It’s a joke!
It’s not about persuading anybody. It’s about questioning the consensus.
Anyway, the original comment was aimed mainly at Warthen.
Really? I was wondering about that. So THIS refers to me?
“I have to add that it’s at least passing strange that someone who says he doesn’t make choices based on polls is ready to use a poll to dismiss those who consider this particular name a problem.”
Who used a poll to dismiss anything or anyone? Where are the words that dismissed? I looked back, and this is the only place where I even alluded to a personal opinion:
So where’s the dismissiveness?
Yep, right there:
“As for me personally — well, I’ve never seen any problem with it.”
Falls right in line with the general consensus.
But that doesn’t dismiss those who DO have a problem, does it?
If anything, I dismiss the value of my OWN opinion when I add, “But since I’m not one of them, and I’ve been told it is supposedly offensive to people in that demographic (and also because I don’t much care what any football team calls itself), I’ve stayed out of it.”
Here’s a simple test: If you can use the term ”redskin“ face-to-face with a group of American Indians and nobody’s feathers get ruffled, then it’s ok. Otherwise, it’s a problem. Polls won’t do.
Why do you assume they’re wearing feathers? THASS RAYCESS!
By the way, this is a perfect example of how much in the minority the SJW’s (social justice warriors) are. They just make the most noise or hold the biggest megaphone. That’s it. There’s not actually very many of them.
Most of the causes they champion are of their own volition and rarely include those they claim to represent. It’s why my own opinion on how to handle the SJW mentality is rather abrupt and simple.
“Shut-up” is the go-to phrase when dealing with the perpetually offended on behalf of others. Oh, and since it’s appropriate here, one of my favorite quotes from C.S Lewis is:
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies.”